Hi, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > > deployment = runtime = run_requires and meta_requires > > I'm currently fairly inconsistent in whether I refer to deployment or > runtime, though.
Ah. For me, intuitively, deployment == "what happens when I install and configure the software", while runtime == "what happens when I run the provided binaries, or import the provided library and call some of its APIs". > > Why two different ways to spell nearly the same thing: > > > >>>> platform.python_implementation() > > 'CPython' > >>>> sys.implementation.name > > 'cpython' > > > > (also, look at how platform.python_implementation() is implemented ) > > Older versions of Python don't have sys.implementation. But then "implementation_name" can have an implementation fallback for older Pythons. Exposing another name sounds a bit confusing. > >> This version of the metadata specification continues to use ``setup.py`` > >> and the distutils command syntax to invoke build and test related > >> operations on a source archive or VCS checkout. > > > > I don't really understand how Metadata 2.0 is dependent on the distutils > > command scheme. Can you elaborate? > > Given an sdist, how do you build a wheel? > > Given a source checkout or raw tarball, how do you build an sdist or > generate the distribution's metadata? > > The whole problem of building from source is currently woefully > underspecified, and there's a lot to be said in favour of > standardising a subset of the existing setuptools command line API Hmmm... I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. The internal mechanics of building a binary archive may deserve standardizing, and perhaps a dedicated distlib API for it, but why would that impact the command-line API? (after all, it's just "python setup.py build_bdist", or something :-)) cheers Antoine. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
